W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Comments on WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:44:06 +0900
Message-ID: <e920a71c0703061744u73852da6s8043d5ccf4ecfef6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kai Hendry" <hendry@iki.fi>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Thanks for your comments. I'll add them to the list of comments on the
doc that we're processing now, but I also have a few questions for you
below to clarify:

On 3/6/07, Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> I amusingly discovered this by trying out http://ready.mobi/ on some of
> my mobile pages I wrote for my thesis http://iki.fi/hendry/msc.pdf a few
> years ago. They scored fair.
>
> Though has anyone tried http://ready.mobi on http://ready.mobi?  :)
>
> I like how ready.mobi gives suggestions for .mobi domains to squat. I
> can't make this stuff up!
>
>
>
>
> I see you're trying to create some sort of Mobile Web content validation
> scheme.

Yes, but it seems you're referring to ready.mobi here? This is not
published by the W3C. This implementation is technically something
separate from the best practices and mobileOK, but they are strongly
related. I think many of your comments still stand though.

> First off, why the application/xhtml+xml? Do you have any idea about the
> problems with this? When will you see the light with HTML?
> http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results
>
> I would love to know of a single mobile phone sporting a conforming XML
> processor. :)

You are suggesting that application/xhtml+xml not be mentioned at all?
mobileOK Basic Tests do define tests that accept several MIME types
including text/html.

> Why not support text/plain in CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT? :)

Good point, I will add this to the list.

> PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT size is slowly becoming a less of an issue, it's more
> latency with mobiles. Can't you see you're writing a document doomed to
> be become obsolete?

Are you suggesting that there is no value in making smaller pages, or
just that the limit suggested here is too low? if you think networks
around the world are fast enough that a 10K page is virtually the same
as 100K, then yes this is a point worth considering.

> Many issues here (SCROLLING, POP_UPS etc.) could be handled by a smart
> UA (and proxy esp for imgs). Telling authors they can't have tables more
> that 2x2 seems a little daft. You will risk content developers creating
> separate mobile device targeted Web pages.  Is that what you want to see
> happen?

If you mean, do the best practices suggest that significantly
different markup be served to mobile phones, I think the answer is
yes. The best practices even go so far as to say don't use tables!
That's very different than a desktop web page.

To be clear, you are suggesting that SCROLLING and POP_UPS are not
necessary because most UAs are smart enough to do the right thing? and
you are saying that it's unwise to recommend best practices that would
mean you can't serve a desktop page to a mobile client?

> Anyway it would be good if some mobile developing hints were just
> implemented by a normal W3C HTML validator like http://validator.w3.org/
> or Unicorn. Anyone working on that? Banging out this bureaucratic
> document "W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0" seems a waste of time and
> resources.

Of course! you may wish to join public-mobileok-checker@w3.org to
discuss the actual implementation of the basic tests 1.0. There is
also a rough draft of such an implementation at
http://validator.w3.org/mobile .

> You need to evolve faster.

We accept all constructive comments! thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 01:44:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 June 2012 12:13:30 GMT